- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1967 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ADITYA SEVA SAMITHI (R) MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI. ANWAR BEIG, S/O. M. GHOUSE BEIG AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.39/3, 1ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE, ABDUL REHAMAN ROAD, RAJIVNAGAR, MYSURU-570 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMAR J.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MYSORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE-570 005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE NO.MAI.NA.PRA/VI.THA-5/C.A.1/2021-22 DATED 08.06.2021 FOR CANCELLATION OF THE CIVIC AMENITY SITE NO.1, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1386.22 SQ. MTRS. AT DEVANOOR, III PHASE LAYOUT, MYSURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.ªÉÄÊ.£À.¥Áæ/«.vÀ-5/¹.J:'1'/2021-22 dated 08.06.2021 passed by respondent No.2, canceling the allotment of a civic amenity Site No.1 at Devanoor's III Phase layout, Mysuru. 2. (i) The petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961. It made a representation to respondent No.2 for allotment of a Civic Community Site for the purpose of construction of a community center for the benefit of the needy. Accordingly, respondent No.2 allotted the aforementioned site on 26.03.1999. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.7,76,283/-. Consequent thereto, respondent No.2 executed a lease deed dated 31.01.2007 for a period of 30 years. After registration of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 lease deed, respondent No.2 handed over possession of the civic amenity site on 03.02.2007. (ii) The petitioner claims that in order to construct a community center, it applied to respondent No.2 for sanction of a plan. The respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.13,310/- which was paid by the petitioner on 28.12.2007. After receiving the said sum, the respondent No.2 permitted the petitioner to construct a Community Center. (iii) The petitioner claims that when it was preparing for construction of the Community Center, two persons named Nazir Ahemad and Kaushar Beig tried to interfere with its possession and enjoyment, which compelled it to file O.S. No.1252/2008. The suit was decreed ex-parte against them. Thereafter, when the petitioner tried to construct a building, one of its members, who had taken the entire responsibility to construct the building, died. The petitioner claims that all relevant documents were lying with him and due to his death, the other directors of the petitioner could not secure the documents and start the construction. Again in the year 2018 when the petitioner tried to put up construction, some locals - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 interfered with its possession, which compelled it to file O.S. No.1222/2018 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru for perpetual injunction. The Trial Court granted an interim injunction and the suit is still pending. The petitioner contends that it has constructed a compound around the property and has also put up a shed in a portion of the property and has dumped material required for construction of the community center. The petitioner claims that whenever members of the public approached it, permission was granted to use the site for performing functions by putting pandals etc. The petitioner further claims that due to Covid-19 pandemic, it was not in a position to put up a permanent structure. (iv) It also claimed that at the time of execution of the lease deed, the petitioner had furnished its address as No.282- A, Post Office Road, Brundavana, 1st stage, Mysuru-20 and subsequently, it shifted its office to No.866, 5th cross, 2nd Phase, Rajendra Nagar, Mysuru. (v) It claims that the aforesaid facts were within the knowledge of respondent No.2, as there was continuous communication between the petitioner and respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 The petitioner further claims that despite the same, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 08.06.2021, behind the back of the petitioner and sent the impugned order by speed post to Bamboo Bazaar Mysuru. The notice so sent returned unserved as the address mentioned was not sufficient. The petitioner therefore contends that the cancellation of allotment was not intimated to it and that the said order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that during the last week of December, 2023, the officials of respondent No.2 visited the Civic amenity site and informed the petitioner that the lease granted in its favour stood cancelled and that steps were being taken to demolish the existing structure and recover possession of the site. The petitioner claimed that it was only then that the officials of respondent No.2 displayed the impugned order, which was earlier returned undelivered, and handed over the said order along with the postal cover to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that its office bearers attempted to acknowledge receipt of the said letter in the records of respondent No.2, but were not permitted to do so. As a result, the petitioner contends that there was no occasion for the petitioner to have knowledge of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 the order passed by respondent No.2 canceling the lease in its favour. (iv) The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 06.01.2024 proposing to demolish unauthorized construction put up on civic amenity sites in different zones of Mysuru City. The civic amenity site allotted to the petitioner lay within Zone 5A. The petitioner therefore collected all the relevant documents and has filed this writ petition challenging the order of cancellation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the address of the petitioner as mentioned in the lease deed is No.282-A, Post Office Road, Brundavana, 1st stage, Mysuru - 20. He contends that the impugned order cancelling the lease was however, addressed to the petitioner at Bamboo Bazaar, Mysuru. He therefore submits that the notice was returned un- served due to insufficient address. He therefore submits that the impugned order thus came to be passed without notice to the petitioner and on this short ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the petitioner was unable to put up construction of a community - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 center on account of interference by the locals. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is now ready to proceed with the construction, but the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned order. He contends that the petitioner has complied with all requirements for putting up the construction and has enclosed the property by putting up a compound and that, if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner would put up construction. 4. (i) Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as per the lease executed in favour of the petitioner, it was required to commence and complete the construction within 03 years from the lease. He contends that from the year 2007 till date, the petitioner has not put up the community center. On the contrary, the petitioner had rented out the civic amenity site to a restaurant which had put up a temporary structure over the property. He therefore contends that the petitioner had no intention to use the civic amenity site for the purpose for which it was leased. He contends that the civic amenity sites are reserved for the benefit of the residents and since the petitioner approached respondent No.2 with a proposal to construct a community center which served the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 interests of the residents, the respondent No.2 had resolved to grant it. He contends that the petitioner instead of using it for constructing a community center has misused it by leasing it out to a private party. He therefore contends that the purpose of allotment is not met and even till date, the petitioner has not put up the community center. Therefore, he contends that the cancellation of the lease is just and proper. (ii) As regards the service of notice to the petitioner before cancelling the allotment, he contends that in the year 2017, a notice was issued to the petitioner which was addressed to Medar Block, Bombu Bazaar, Mysuru. However, the same returned un-served. Thereafter, a notice was sent to the petitioner at No.866, Rajendranagar, which too returned un-served. On 23.06.2021 another notice was issued to the petitioner which was received by Mr. Mohammed Nayeem, who was the secretary of the petitioner as on the date of execution of the lease deed. He therefore contends that the petitioner was indeed notified about the cancellation and hence the contention that it was done without notice to the petitioner is not just and proper. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 (iii) Besides this, he contends that the very purpose of issuing a notice is to call upon the petitioner to explain whether the community center is constructed in terms of the lease deed. He submits that admittedly the petitioner has not constructed the community center and has instead put up a temporary structure and leased it out to a private party. He therefore contends that so long as the community centre is not constructed, the service of notice would serve no purpose. Thus, he contends that even if the impugned order of cancellation is assumed to be passed without notice to the petitioner, that does not render it improper as the fact remains that the building is not constructed till date. He therefore contends that no indulgence is warranted to interfere with the impugned order. (iv) He also contends that the impugned cancellation of the lease was on 08.06.2021 and the secretary of the petitioner had received it on 23.06.2021. But the petitioner has approached this Court after nearly 03 years and therefore the petition is also belated and there is no explanation for the delay. He therefore prays that the petition be dismissed so that respondent No.2 can take further steps for allotment of the site - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 to another agency to subserve the interest of the residents of the locality. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 6. The allotment of the civic amenity site in question to the petitioner is not in dispute. The lease deed was executed by respondent No.2 in the year 2007. It was mandated in the lease deed that the construction shall commence within 06 months from the date of the lease deed and should complete within 03 years. The petitioner had obtained sanction of a plan to put up construction on 28.12.2007. The photographs enclosed along with the writ petition would show that the petitioner had enclosed the property by a compound. Annexure - N3 shows that the petitioner had put up a temporary structure which was leased out to a private entity named "IDC Grand", a vegetarian restaurant. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that except the temporary structure, there was any other building which was used for the purpose for which the civic amenity site was - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 granted. If the petitioner is able to put up a temporary structure in the civic amenity site, without being disturbed by the locals, there is no reason why it could not have constructed a community center in the civic amenity site that was allotted to it. This Court directed the petitioner to remove the temporary structure which was leased out to a private restaurant in terms of an order dated 10.11.2025, as the structure was put up in violation of an interim order of status- quo dated 20.01.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted photographs to indicate that the said structure was removed. It is therefore evident that the petitioner had used the civic amenity site for a purpose which was not meant in the lease deed. The petitioner had also rented it out to another private party without the consent of respondent No.2. It is therefore evident that the petitioner had no intention to put up a community center which was the purpose of allotment to the petitioner. As the petitioner has admittedly not constructed the community center, no purpose would be served even if a notice was not issued to the petitioner to show-cause why the allotment should not be cancelled. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53478 WP No. 1967 of 2024 8. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the notice of the cancellation was sent to the address which was furnished and the then Secretary of the petitioner had received it. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim after 03 years from the date of termination that it was not notified. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the petition stands dismissed. The respondent No.2 shall take further steps to recover possession of the civic amenity site and re-allot it to any useful purpose in accordance with law. This will be complied within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2